Roast mode 🔥

Crypto chaos meets bond boredom in a strangely lopsided so called balanced portfolio

Report created on Apr 28, 2026

Risk profile Info

4/7
Balanced
Less risk More risk

Diversification profile Info

5/5
Highly Diversified
Less diversification More diversification

Positions

This portfolio looks like three different people built it without talking to each other. One went “steady bonds,” another went “broad global-ish equity,” and the third just smashed the crypto button and walked away. The label says “balanced,” but 13% in crypto plus a single stock at almost 9% is doing its best to sabotage that story. It’s like mixing herbal tea, espresso, and tequila in one glass and calling it hydration. The structure isn’t disastrous, but the risk engines are clearly driven by a few thrill-seeking positions while the rest of the holdings sit there acting like decor.

Growth Info

Historically, this thing did well on paper: €1,000 turning into €1,457 is not embarrassing. A 17.73% CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate — your average yearly speed over a weird road trip) looks nice until it stands next to the US and global markets both over 21%. You took almost similar drawdowns, -18% vs low 20s for the benchmarks, but still got paid less for the drama. Needing just 15 days to generate 90% of returns screams “hold on and pray” rather than smooth compounding. Past data is yesterday’s weather: useful, but it clearly shows this mix hasn’t beaten the simple benchmarks it tries to imitate.

Projection Info

The Monte Carlo projection — basically a thousand “what if the future goes this way?” coin flips — says the portfolio could end anywhere from “decent” to “why is everything on fire?” After 15 years, the most likely outcome is about €2,511 from €1,000, with a fat possible range between €1,137 and €6,096. That spread is what happens when calm bonds and gold share a room with crypto and concentrated equity bets. The average simulated return of 6.99% is solid but not heroic, especially given how much volatility is stuffed in here. The simulation politely hints: this mix can absolutely misbehave along the way.

Asset classes Info

  • Stocks
    31%
  • Bonds
    31%
  • No data
    20%
  • Crypto
    13%
  • Other
    4%

On paper, the asset class split looks respectably grown-up: around a third stocks, a third bonds, a chunk of crypto, a small slice of “Other,” and a black box of “No data.” The “balanced” marketing spin mostly comes from the bond bucket doing damage control while the crypto allocation furiously yanks the risk slider back to spicy. Treat bonds as the quiet friend who keeps everyone from getting kicked out of the bar; crypto is the one juggling flaming bottles. The mystery “No data” section just means part of the portfolio can’t be cleanly labeled, which doesn’t help anyone understand what’s actually driving behaviour.

Sectors Info

  • Crypto
    13%
  • Technology
    13%
  • No data
    9%
  • Financials
    2%
  • Consumer Discretionary
    2%
  • Industrials
    2%
  • Telecommunications
    1%
  • Health Care
    1%
  • Consumer Staples
    1%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Sector breakdown is basically: crypto plus a tech crush with a bit of everything else sprinkled to look diversified. Roughly 13% in crypto and 13% in technology gives the portfolio a big dependency on the “fast and fragile” part of markets. Then there’s a tiny sliver across financials, consumer stuff, industrials, telecom, health care, and staples — more of a tasting menu than a proper allocation. Bond and gold positions don’t show up here, so the sector picture is equity-and-crypto only, but even within that, the tilt is clear: this mix would rather chase innovation and digital excitement than boringly steady business models.

Regions Info

  • North America
    12%
  • Europe Developed
    9%
  • Asia Developed
    4%
  • Asia Emerging
    4%
  • Japan
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Geographically, this thing is pretending to be global but with obvious blind spots. A modest chunk in North America and developed Europe, plus some Asia (including Japan) and emerging Asia, looks fine at first glance. But the numbers are small enough that “world allocation” is really a marketing headline more than a full commitment. The Slovenia ETF is a very local flourish that barely moves the global needle but definitely adds quirk. The reality: plenty of the world is missing or underrepresented, so risk lives more in style and asset choices than in broad geographic diversification. This is “world-ish,” not genuinely global.

Market capitalization Info

  • Large-cap
    16%
  • Mega-cap
    14%
  • No data
    4%
  • Mid-cap
    2%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Market cap exposure is basically a large-and-mega-cap fan club with a token mid-cap cameo. Around 30% in big and mega companies means most of the equity risk is tied to the giants that already dominate major indexes. That’s not inherently bad — big companies are usually more stable — but it does mean the portfolio leans heavily on the usual corporate celebrities. The tiny mid-cap slice is too small to seriously change behaviour. The “No data” chunk adds a bit of mystery, but overall this is a top-heavy structure: lots of exposure to the elephants, not much to the scrappier up-and-comers.

True holdings Info

  • Novo Nordisk A/S Class B
    8.85%
  • NVIDIA Corporation
    1.98%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • Apple Inc
    1.74%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
    1.32%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • Microsoft Corporation
    1.23%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • Broadcom Inc
    0.66%
    Part of fund(s):
    • SPDR S&P 500 UCITS ETF USD Acc
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
  • ASML Holding N.V.
    0.59%
    Part of fund(s):
    • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
    • Xtrackers Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF
  • Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
    0.50%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
    0.39%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • Tencent Holdings Ltd
    0.38%
    Part of fund(s):
    • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
  • Top 10 total 17.65%

This breakdown covers the equity portion of your portfolio only.

Look-through holdings show a tech celebrity red carpet: NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, TSMC, Broadcom, ASML, Samsung — all showing up via ETFs. None of that is shocking, but it does mean a lot of underlying risk is tied to the same narrow group of giants even if they’re wrapped in different wrappers. Novo Nordisk sits alone as a direct 8.85% position with zero ETF overlap, so its impact is very “all-or-nothing” on its own. Coverage is low because only ETF top-10s are used, so actual overlap is almost certainly higher. The portfolio is more concentrated under the hood than the surface labels admit.

Risk contribution Info

  • Ethereum
    Weight: 8.85%
    37.1%
  • Novo Nordisk A/S Class B
    Weight: 8.85%
    16.8%
  • Bitcoin
    Weight: 4.43%
    11.3%
  • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C
    Weight: 7.96%
    8.6%
  • Xtrackers Stoxx Europe 600 UCITS ETF
    Weight: 11.06%
    7.4%
  • Top 5 risk contribution 81.2%

Risk contribution is where the clown car opens. Ethereum at 8.85% weight throwing off 37.14% of total portfolio risk is wild — that one line item is basically the chaos engine. Novo Nordisk, also 8.85%, adds 16.75% of risk, and Bitcoin at 4.43% manages 11.28%. The top three positions together drive over 65% of all volatility. Risk contribution is just “who’s actually shaking the portfolio,” and here the answer is: a couple of concentrated bets and crypto, while the bond positions mostly sit there like seatbelts. On paper it’s diversified; in reality a few holdings are hogging the drama spotlight.

Risk vs. return

This chart shows the Efficient Frontier, calculated using your current assets with different allocation combinations. It highlights the best balance between risk and return based on historical data. "Efficient" portfolios maximize returns for a given risk or minimize risk for a given return. Portfolios below the curve are less efficient. This is informational and not a recommendation to buy or sell any assets.

Click on the colored dots to explore allocations.

The efficient frontier chart is basically yelling that this portfolio is leaving a lot of return on the table for the risk it’s taking. With a Sharpe ratio of 1.01 (risk-adjusted return score) versus 2.96 for the optimal mix using the same holdings, the current setup is spectacularly inefficient. You’re 20.95 percentage points below the frontier at this risk level, which is like running a marathon with ankle weights for no reason. The brutal part: the math says just reweighting the *existing* positions could drastically improve the tradeoff. The ingredients aren’t awful; the recipe is just unnecessarily clumsy.

Ongoing product costs Info

  • iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF 0.20%
  • Invesco Euro Government Bond 1-3 Year UCITS ETF 0.10%
  • iShares Inflation Linked Government Bond UCITS 0.09%
  • Expat Slovenia SBI Top UCITS ETF 1.00%
  • Xtrackers MSCI World Information Technology UCITS ETF 1C 0.25%
  • iShares Physical Gold ETC 0.25%
  • Xtrackers MSCI Japan UCITS ETF 1C 0.12%
  • Multi Units Luxembourg - Lyxor EuroMTS 5-7Y Investment Grade (DR) UCITS ETF 0.16%
  • Weighted costs total (per year) 0.18%

Costs are the one area where this portfolio doesn’t completely trip over itself. A total TER around 0.18% is impressively low, especially given the messy mix of holdings. Most ETFs are cheap and sensible; the Slovenia fund at 1.00% is the oddball luxury item in an otherwise discount basket. It’s like shopping at a budget supermarket then randomly throwing in one overpriced artisanal jar for no clear reason. Still, overall fees aren’t the problem here — the structure, risk concentration, and factor tilts are. You didn’t donate much to fund managers; you just configured the cheap tools in a needlessly dramatic way.

What next?

Create your own report?

Analyze your portfolio

Join our community!

Join Discord

The information provided on this platform is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial or investment advice. Insightfolio does not provide investment advice, personalized recommendations, or guidance regarding the purchase, holding, or sale of financial assets. The tools and content are intended for educational purposes only and are not tailored to individual circumstances, financial needs, or objectives.

Insightfolio assumes no liability for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information presented. Users are solely responsible for verifying the information and making independent decisions based on their own research and careful consideration. Use of the platform should not replace consultation with qualified financial professionals.

Investments involve risks. Users should be aware that the value of investments may fluctuate and that past performance is not an indicator of future results. Investment decisions should be based on personal financial goals, risk tolerance, and independent evaluation of relevant information.

Insightfolio does not endorse or guarantee the suitability of any particular financial product, security, or strategy. Any projections, forecasts, or hypothetical scenarios presented on the platform are for illustrative purposes only and are not guarantees of future outcomes.

By accessing the services, information, or content offered by Insightfolio, users acknowledge and agree to these terms of the disclaimer. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our platform.

Instrument logos provided by Elbstream.

Help us improve Insightfolio

Your feedback makes a difference! Share your thoughts in our quick survey. Take the survey